Now, notice how everyone in this thread was talking about the obvious rainbow moire on the right.

No one talked about the rainbow moire below that. More importantly to my point, no one talked about the green and/or pink shades appearing where all the thin branches are intersecting, (note the thick branches have no colour deviations) or the colour deviations on just about all the verticals, what appears to be a significant green deviation on the lower left (though this might be the real colour ... hard to tell when a weak AA is throwing up colour deviations everywhere).

In a nutshell, you can see colour deviations all over this image.

Now, as the respondents say, you can correct much of this in post. Also, the green and pink shades being thrown up by the micro detail will be cancelled out by the eye when the image is seen as a whole.

But then the entire debate centers on micro detail does it not? If that is the case, the colour of the micro detail of E5 files look really off to me. It is not a file I would like to have for display of micro detail.

I should also note that someone else contacted me about this image. He was gobsmacked about the colour deviations and he is someone I have been debating about weak AA's and sharpness.

Show me 100% file with fine detail from an E5 and I'll show you colour deviations.

As to your point about sharpening creating artifacts: I agree. It does and it is hard to get right. In addition, everyone's eye seems different with regards to sharpness. You criticise my work for not being sharp enough, but you can see by my thread I can do it if I want.

So I guess this entire debate comes down to whether your eye is more insulted by poor colour or soft detail. The strength of the AA might be one of those things that can be only subjectively optimal.

Obviously, I am disappointed by Oly's change in philosophy (best optical file possible) whereas others are very pleased (if we can get close with software and its cheaper, why not?).